Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Remember back when WPA was first talked of here? The doubters were cast as
people who just wanted to whinge and complain about a procedure which was
apparently painless, innocuous and really, really convenient... because all
you had to do, if you were honest, was click to "activate" and no personal
information was intruded on.

Well, we told them that WPA was just the first step in a regressive trend
which would remove rights bit by bit from anyone who thought they had
purchased a license to use... but they scoffed at us. Now we have this:
http://www.microsoft-watch.com/art [...] X1K0000535
where they clearly announce their intention to scrap Internet based WPA for
all "pre-activated PCs". I'm still trying to figure what it is that Mr.
Kochis is telling us is now a "criminal offence" but we'll see what happens
to our ability to purchase OEM copies of WinXP with our self-build systems
in future - wouldn't surprise me if that goes away too.

I'm not sure how this new procedure is going to play for someone on an
overseas trip with a notebook computer - having to 'phone M$ to beg for an
activation code could be difficult.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 23:06:38 -0500, George Macdonald wrote:

> Remember back when WPA was first talked of here? The doubters were cast as
> people who just wanted to whinge and complain about a procedure which was
> apparently painless, innocuous and really, really convenient... because all
> you had to do, if you were honest, was click to "activate" and no personal
> information was intruded on.
>
> Well, we told them that WPA was just the first step in a regressive trend
> which would remove rights bit by bit from anyone who thought they had
> purchased a license to use... but they scoffed at us. Now we have this:
> http://www.microsoft-watch.com/art [...] X1K0000535
> where they clearly announce their intention to scrap Internet based WPA for
> all "pre-activated PCs". I'm still trying to figure what it is that Mr.
> Kochis is telling us is now a "criminal offence" but we'll see what happens
> to our ability to purchase OEM copies of WinXP with our self-build systems
> in future - wouldn't surprise me if that goes away too.
>
> I'm not sure how this new procedure is going to play for someone on an
> overseas trip with a notebook computer - having to 'phone M$ to beg for an
> activation code could be difficult.

Nice article, now after the Linux wine posting, this is getting real
interesting. So does that mean when I buy my OEM copy of Windows XP 64, I
will get a warranty? What about fair use? What about a new build using a
new board, chip, memory? What happens if I type in the wrong code,a 1
instead of an L, am I marked as a thief? This is getting better and
better, no COA's, I can see the nightmares already, say you call up Dell,
they tell you to call Microsoft, do this about 10 times.

As if I needed another excuse to put *nix *bsd's on my machines, all I can
say is Thank You Microsoft for your excellent customer service, and
customer loyalty, Not!

Gnu_Raiz

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 23:06:38 -0500, George Macdonald
<fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:

>Remember back when WPA was first talked of here? The doubters were cast as
>people who just wanted to whinge and complain about a procedure which was
>apparently painless, innocuous and really, really convenient... because all
>you had to do, if you were honest, was click to "activate" and no personal
>information was intruded on.

WPA is anything but painless for a LOT of people. Trust me, I get to
deal with it every now and then, and it's a MAJOR pain in the butt if
your system isn't on a LAN.

Ironically, business systems that typically would not have problems
with activation since they are usually on a LAN don't have to worry
about this because they mostly use WinXP Pro (or at least they
should), which doesn't have WPA.

>Well, we told them that WPA was just the first step in a regressive trend
>which would remove rights bit by bit from anyone who thought they had
>purchased a license to use... but they scoffed at us. Now we have this:
>http://www.microsoft-watch.com/article2/0,1995,1769339,00.asp?kc=MWRSS02129TX1K0000535
>where they clearly announce their intention to scrap Internet based WPA for
>all "pre-activated PCs". I'm still trying to figure what it is that Mr.
>Kochis is telling us is now a "criminal offence" but we'll see what happens
>to our ability to purchase OEM copies of WinXP with our self-build systems
>in future - wouldn't surprise me if that goes away too.

Ohhh bloody hell! I have this NASTY feeling that this is going to end
up being a *major* pain in my ass!

>I'm not sure how this new procedure is going to play for someone on an
>overseas trip with a notebook computer - having to 'phone M$ to beg for an
>activation code could be difficult.

That's only the first bit of the nightmare that I'm starting to
picture in my head...

Uggg.. I'm getting a headache just thinking about this one... All I
can say is that I'm DAMN glad that over 90% of the systems I encounter
use WinXP Pro, though I'm sure MS is just *itching* to add activation
into that as well.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 03:42:01 -0500, Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca>
wrote:

>On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 23:06:38 -0500, George Macdonald
><fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:
>
>>Remember back when WPA was first talked of here? The doubters were cast as
>>people who just wanted to whinge and complain about a procedure which was
>>apparently painless, innocuous and really, really convenient... because all
>>you had to do, if you were honest, was click to "activate" and no personal
>>information was intruded on.
>
>WPA is anything but painless for a LOT of people. Trust me, I get to
>deal with it every now and then, and it's a MAJOR pain in the butt if
>your system isn't on a LAN.

Perhaps an :-P would have been apropriate in my comment above.:-)

>Ironically, business systems that typically would not have problems
>with activation since they are usually on a LAN don't have to worry
>about this because they mostly use WinXP Pro (or at least they
>should), which doesn't have WPA.

For WinXP Pro, it used to depend on where you got it from. All the OEM
WinXP Pros I've installed on DIY systems had WPA; I'm pretty sure even the
Thinkpads I was buying had WPA at one time, though the last couple didn't.

>>Well, we told them that WPA was just the first step in a regressive trend
>>which would remove rights bit by bit from anyone who thought they had
>>purchased a license to use... but they scoffed at us. Now we have this:
>>http://www.microsoft-watch.com/article2/0,1995,1769339,00.asp?kc=MWRSS02129TX1K0000535
>>where they clearly announce their intention to scrap Internet based WPA for
>>all "pre-activated PCs". I'm still trying to figure what it is that Mr.
>>Kochis is telling us is now a "criminal offence" but we'll see what happens
>>to our ability to purchase OEM copies of WinXP with our self-build systems
>>in future - wouldn't surprise me if that goes away too.
>
>Ohhh bloody hell! I have this NASTY feeling that this is going to end
>up being a *major* pain in my ass!

I also came across another tid-bit, in French at Aviran's, more gossip than
any confirmed report, that from April 12, the auto-update will only work if
you have SP2 installed.

>>I'm not sure how this new procedure is going to play for someone on an
>>overseas trip with a notebook computer - having to 'phone M$ to beg for an
>>activation code could be difficult.
>
>That's only the first bit of the nightmare that I'm starting to
>picture in my head...

I'm thinking though that the road warriors are the "users" who are going to
be the most impacted and the ones who are in the best position to raise a
stink about it.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> writes:

> I also came across another tid-bit, in French at Aviran's, more gossip than
> any confirmed report, that from April 12, the auto-update will only work if
> you have SP2 installed.

Errh, the windowsupdate.microsoft.com website says SP1 - which I'd say
is reasonable.

But microsoft has already started requesting you to validate that you
have a valid license by downloading a program that returns some
8-character code. Said program fails on my Sony laptop with
pre-installed XP home, and a brand-spanking new Dell with XP Pro.
Just exactly *what* are they smoking in Redmond?


Kai
--
Kai Harrekilde-Petersen <khp(at)harrekilde(dot)dk>

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 18:56:08 +0100, Kai Harrekilde-Petersen
<khp@harrekilde.dk> wrote:

>George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> writes:
>
>> I also came across another tid-bit, in French at Aviran's, more gossip than
>> any confirmed report, that from April 12, the auto-update will only work if
>> you have SP2 installed.
>
>Errh, the windowsupdate.microsoft.com website says SP1 - which I'd say
>is reasonable.

Yeah, I figured that might be gossip:
http://www.whynet.org/actualites/i [...] -microsoft
- I guess we'll see what happens on April 12... 3days before U.S. tax day
so that could be aggravating for a few people.:-)

>But microsoft has already started requesting you to validate that you
>have a valid license by downloading a program that returns some
>8-character code. Said program fails on my Sony laptop with
>pre-installed XP home, and a brand-spanking new Dell with XP Pro.
>Just exactly *what* are they smoking in Redmond?

I haven't seen that one yet. What I'm most concerned about is that they
may clamp down on the "WinXP OEM" versions which are available at
e-tailers... as long as you buy "with hardware" or "a complete system".
Some of the vendors have been pretty lax about the rules; e.g. they'd sell
you a WinXP OEM, or an Office 3-pack, with the purchase of only a hard
disk. M$ has tightened the rules a bit in the past year and I'd rather not
end up paying retail price for a new system OS.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 18:37:47 -0500, George Macdonald
<fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 18:56:08 +0100, Kai Harrekilde-Petersen
><khp@harrekilde.dk> wrote:
>

<snip>

>
>>But microsoft has already started requesting you to validate that you
>>have a valid license by downloading a program that returns some
>>8-character code. Said program fails on my Sony laptop with
>>pre-installed XP home, and a brand-spanking new Dell with XP Pro.
>>Just exactly *what* are they smoking in Redmond?

Ole' Bill's a real hero, he is.

>
>I haven't seen that one yet. What I'm most concerned about is that they
>may clamp down on the "WinXP OEM" versions which are available at
>e-tailers... as long as you buy "with hardware" or "a complete system".
>Some of the vendors have been pretty lax about the rules; e.g. they'd sell
>you a WinXP OEM, or an Office 3-pack, with the purchase of only a hard
>disk. M$ has tightened the rules a bit in the past year and I'd rather not
>end up paying retail price for a new system OS.

I'd read somewhere it was the retail boxed version they planned on
discontinuing. That's the version I've always purchased. If you look
hard, it can be had for not much more than the OEM version, and it's
legally portable. If they discontinue OEM and Retail Boxed, it means
no more Windows for DIY. I doubt that outcome, but that they'd make
it a real PITA for we brave few, I can readily believe.

This all just proves how not ready for prime time linux is and ever
will be. Otherwise, supernerd would never get away with this kind of
nonsense.

RM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 20:01:53 -0500, Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net>
wrote:

>On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 18:37:47 -0500, George Macdonald
><fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 18:56:08 +0100, Kai Harrekilde-Petersen
>><khp@harrekilde.dk> wrote:
>>
>
><snip>
>
>>
>>>But microsoft has already started requesting you to validate that you
>>>have a valid license by downloading a program that returns some
>>>8-character code. Said program fails on my Sony laptop with
>>>pre-installed XP home, and a brand-spanking new Dell with XP Pro.
>>>Just exactly *what* are they smoking in Redmond?
>
>Ole' Bill's a real hero, he is.

The Embalmer is the one I think.

>>I haven't seen that one yet. What I'm most concerned about is that they
>>may clamp down on the "WinXP OEM" versions which are available at
>>e-tailers... as long as you buy "with hardware" or "a complete system".
>>Some of the vendors have been pretty lax about the rules; e.g. they'd sell
>>you a WinXP OEM, or an Office 3-pack, with the purchase of only a hard
>>disk. M$ has tightened the rules a bit in the past year and I'd rather not
>>end up paying retail price for a new system OS.
>
>I'd read somewhere it was the retail boxed version they planned on
>discontinuing. That's the version I've always purchased. If you look
>hard, it can be had for not much more than the OEM version, and it's
>legally portable. If they discontinue OEM and Retail Boxed, it means
>no more Windows for DIY. I doubt that outcome, but that they'd make
>it a real PITA for we brave few, I can readily believe.

At NewEgg, WinXP Pro OEM is $147.95 and Retail is $269.95 and you *do* have
to buy the OEM version where you get your hardware. I hadn't heard about
any discontinuation of the retail package... what?... on top of all the
other guff, they're going to make us beg for it now.:-)

>This all just proves how not ready for prime time linux is and ever
>will be. Otherwise, supernerd would never get away with this kind of
>nonsense.

I'm not sure I understand the Linux application software business model.
E.g. Oracle has a Linux version. How do they charge for it?... assuming
they use a goodly portion of the open source libraries, at least for the
user interface?

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 18:37:47 -0500, George Macdonald wrote:

> I haven't seen that one yet. What I'm most concerned about is that they
> may clamp down on the "WinXP OEM" versions which are available at
> e-tailers... as long as you buy "with hardware" or "a complete system".
> Some of the vendors have been pretty lax about the rules; e.g. they'd sell
> you a WinXP OEM, or an Office 3-pack, with the purchase of only a hard
> disk.

Some will sell you OEM software witl as little as an IDE *cable*. Hey,
it's hardware, even if it's only $3 worth.

> M$ has tightened the rules a bit in the past year and I'd rather not
> end up paying retail price for a new system OS.

I'm not bloody likely to either. I stopped (and started, in fact) with
Win2K.

--
Keith

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 08:08:24 -0500, George Macdonald
<fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 20:01:53 -0500, Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 18:37:47 -0500, George Macdonald
>><fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 18:56:08 +0100, Kai Harrekilde-Petersen
>>><khp@harrekilde.dk> wrote:
>>>
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>
>>>>But microsoft has already started requesting you to validate that you
>>>>have a valid license by downloading a program that returns some
>>>>8-character code. Said program fails on my Sony laptop with
>>>>pre-installed XP home, and a brand-spanking new Dell with XP Pro.
>>>>Just exactly *what* are they smoking in Redmond?
>>
>>Ole' Bill's a real hero, he is.
>
>The Embalmer is the one I think.
>
Plausible deniability being one of the perks of being the world's
wealthiest man? I'll never believe that anything important happens
without his approval.

>>>I haven't seen that one yet. What I'm most concerned about is that they
>>>may clamp down on the "WinXP OEM" versions which are available at
>>>e-tailers... as long as you buy "with hardware" or "a complete system".
>>>Some of the vendors have been pretty lax about the rules; e.g. they'd sell
>>>you a WinXP OEM, or an Office 3-pack, with the purchase of only a hard
>>>disk. M$ has tightened the rules a bit in the past year and I'd rather not
>>>end up paying retail price for a new system OS.
>>
>>I'd read somewhere it was the retail boxed version they planned on
>>discontinuing. That's the version I've always purchased. If you look
>>hard, it can be had for not much more than the OEM version, and it's
>>legally portable. If they discontinue OEM and Retail Boxed, it means
>>no more Windows for DIY. I doubt that outcome, but that they'd make
>>it a real PITA for we brave few, I can readily believe.
>
>At NewEgg, WinXP Pro OEM is $147.95 and Retail is $269.95 and you *do* have
>to buy the OEM version where you get your hardware. I hadn't heard about
>any discontinuation of the retail package... what?... on top of all the
>other guff, they're going to make us beg for it now.:-)
>
Last time I bought, I found I could do significantly better than that
for the retail boxed version.

>>This all just proves how not ready for prime time linux is and ever
>>will be. Otherwise, supernerd would never get away with this kind of
>>nonsense.
>
>I'm not sure I understand the Linux application software business model.
>E.g. Oracle has a Linux version. How do they charge for it?... assuming
>they use a goodly portion of the open source libraries, at least for the
>user interface?

http://www.oracle.com/corporate/pricing/eplext.pdf

I assume that whatever they use must be LGPL or equivalent. I'm not a
GUI type.

The bigger problem with Linux is that it just really isn't supported.
Adobe Reader for X is not nearly as functional as Adobe Reader for
Windows. Web sites don't always work. Media often don't work. You
can fiddle and fumble, but, in the end, it just isn't worth it...

I blame this partly on Sun, which, had it recognized Microsoft as the
enemy and been more open with Java, might have forced an open standard
for web-type applications. Didn't happen. Game, set, and match:
Microsoft.

RM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 05:26:17 -0500, George Macdonald
<fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 03:42:01 -0500, Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 23:06:38 -0500, George Macdonald
>><fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:
>>
>>Ironically, business systems that typically would not have problems
>>with activation since they are usually on a LAN don't have to worry
>>about this because they mostly use WinXP Pro (or at least they
>>should), which doesn't have WPA.
>
>For WinXP Pro, it used to depend on where you got it from. All the OEM
>WinXP Pros I've installed on DIY systems had WPA; I'm pretty sure even the
>Thinkpads I was buying had WPA at one time, though the last couple didn't.

Hmm.. I can't remember ever activating a WinXP Pro system. Maybe I
just got lucky?

>>Ohhh bloody hell! I have this NASTY feeling that this is going to end
>>up being a *major* pain in my ass!
>
>I also came across another tid-bit, in French at Aviran's, more gossip than
>any confirmed report, that from April 12, the auto-update will only work if
>you have SP2 installed.

I don't know about the exact date, but I just got the official word at
work yesterday that sometime in April, SP2 was going to become somehow
mandatory for all WinXP systems. Details are still kind of sketchy as
to what this means though. I'll let you know when I hear more,
probably next week.

Typically Microsoft provides 1 year worth of updates for previous
service packs, so I don't know why they've changed this for WinXP SP2,
especially since a LOT of corporate buyers have been rather reluctant
to move to SP2.

>>>I'm not sure how this new procedure is going to play for someone on an
>>>overseas trip with a notebook computer - having to 'phone M$ to beg for an
>>>activation code could be difficult.
>>
>>That's only the first bit of the nightmare that I'm starting to
>>picture in my head...
>
>I'm thinking though that the road warriors are the "users" who are going to
>be the most impacted and the ones who are in the best position to raise a
>stink about it.

The best position to raise a stink about it, yes. Though they
certainly won't be the only ones affected by this!

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 18:56:08 +0100, Kai Harrekilde-Petersen
<khp@harrekilde.dk> wrote:

>George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> writes:
>
>> I also came across another tid-bit, in French at Aviran's, more gossip than
>> any confirmed report, that from April 12, the auto-update will only work if
>> you have SP2 installed.
>
>Errh, the windowsupdate.microsoft.com website says SP1 - which I'd say
>is reasonable.
>
>But microsoft has already started requesting you to validate that you
>have a valid license by downloading a program that returns some
>8-character code. Said program fails on my Sony laptop with
>pre-installed XP home, and a brand-spanking new Dell with XP Pro.
>Just exactly *what* are they smoking in Redmond?
>
>
>Kai
While I can see a legitimate reason in buying Sony laptop, I could
find no justification whatsoever in getting "brand-spanking new Dell
with XP Pro". At least not for someone who has enough brain to be in
this NG. Never had that validation issue with any of my home-built
systems loaded with software from my employer's MSDN subscription.
But then, again, I am still on Win2k - was suspitious about XP when it
came out, and am even more suspitious after SP2 forced so many to
C:>FORMAT C/u ;-)

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Robert Myers wrote:
>
[...]
> I'd read somewhere it was the retail boxed version they planned on
> discontinuing. That's the version I've always purchased. If you look
> hard, it can be had for not much more than the OEM version, and it's
> legally portable. If they discontinue OEM and Retail Boxed, it means
> no more Windows for DIY. I doubt that outcome, but that they'd make
> it a real PITA for we brave few, I can readily believe.

Which would mean the end of home build as we know it. We've already
had a decline of programming by the end users; this was very important
in the early beginning of home computers.

> This all just proves how not ready for prime time linux is and ever
> will be. Otherwise, supernerd would never get away with this kind of
> nonsense.

Yes, shame about all those years of interest in M$; if it's not doing
the job, then it can only be dumped.